When Pigs Fly: Swine Flu stokes my inner conspiracy theorist.

(Apologies in advance to Occasional Professor Tom)

Today, pharmaceuticals giant Sanofi-Aventis announced some very healthy profits. Which weren't quite so healthy when you consider how they got them (nor were the $1 billion windfall of fellow pharma-giant GlaxoSmithKline)

They, along with a few other pharmaceutical conglomerations, are finding their coffers swollen by the bulk-purchase of millions of doses of 'Swine Flu' vaccine - 75 million doses to the United States alone.

The H1N1 'Swine Flu' crisis has been bandied about all year. Just as we thought we were reaching the end of the hysteria, President Obama went on television to announce that the flu epidemic was nothing less than a 'National Emergency' and billions of taxpayer's dollar were being poured into distributing the rushed-into-production vaccine (although curiously enough, very few people I've spoken to have actually seen hide nor hair of it in their neighborhood!)

My problem with all this? I suspect it's a scam!

The H1N1 virus looks to me like a pathetic misdirection. This 'pandemic' may have caused 1,000 deaths in the United States so far - but that's compared to almost that many who die every week from regular flu.

And let's get serious for a second here. While H1N1 can be very dangerous - hospitalizing 8% of the people infected with it - that's nothing compared to the 18% of people infected with regular flu who wind up in the hospital.

Regular flu is more widespread and more dangerous - but is hardly making a blip on our radar.

And why's this? Well, the cynical side of me suspects it's because the pharmaceutical lobbyists - who outnumber congressmen two and a half to one - have been investing millions into 'recruiting' politicians to their cause.

Scare up a scandal. Hype up the hysteria. Get people good 'n worried about the 'swine flu.' Follow that up by greasing a few palms in congress and then the next thing you know, the government has no choice but to invest billions into a dubious vaccine to supplement the existing flu vaccines.

So a few million invested by the drug companies reaps a tenfold reward. It's good business -but a bad example of the way things are done in Washington.

Okay, so some people might argue that I'm being ridiculous. Swine flu, after all, is entirely different to regular flu and while it might not be as dangerous, it poses it's own unique risk to vulnerable members of society. Surely it warrants it's own vaccine?

All I can say is: I'm not convinced. Statistically, while the Center for Disease Control admits that regular flu vaccine is between 70%-90% effective in combating flu 'in healthy adults,' it's not healthy adults who are at risk from flu.

The majority of deaths occur amongst children, the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Regular vaccine is far less effective amongst the people who need it the most - in fact, studies from Alberta claim it doesn't reduce mortality at all.

...and if regular flu vaccine could just be a big, fat placebo (and an enormous - simply enormous - government-funded windfall for the pharmaceutical companies) what should we believe about Swine Flu vaccine?

There's even debate about whether the vaccine is needed at all. According to President Obama and the CDC, Swine Flu is already a 'pandemic.' But is it?

Interestingly enough, the CDC stopped recording individual cases of H1N1 in late July - after over 90% of those reporting 'Swine Flu' infection in the emergency rooms were discovered to either have regular flu (between 3-5%) or no infection at all.

The CDC - the federal body we trust to protect us from disease - doesn't keep any records of H1N1 infections. Yet they are still willing to claim it's a 'pandemic.'

It might well be - that colleague you hear coughing in the cubicle next to you could be hacking and spluttering Influenza A H1N1 all over the office. But, more likely, he's just got the sniffles, or is choking on a pretzel. The truth? We'll never know.

And that means if the CDC want me to take their 'word' about the risk of so-called Swine Flu, I will do.

When pigs fly.

Why would a non-believer go to Church?

One question I'm frequently asked is about Church.

Since I don't believe in a higher power, people wonder why I attend our local Anglican church most Sundays. They wonder why I'm on the Lector's roll - and why I even teach Sunday school.

There are actually many reasons. Here's the most important one: It's for my son.

But that's not the only reason (as I'll explain later.)

Mini-Militant is just a baby - but as he grows up, he's going to have to go through the same spiritual journey as the rest of us did. Will he believe in God? What shape will that faith take? Or will he reach the same conclusion I did - that there is no 'higher power?'

Whatever decision he eventually makes - it's his. I'm sure my belief will influence him - but similarly, so will his mother's strong faith. In any event, I want to give him the chance to reach that conclusion himself instead of being brainwashed one way or another (something I detest about fundamentalism in America.)

But less magnanimously, I also want his introduction to religion to be a good one. The Anglican church means a lot to me - not just because it's the denomination I was raised as. In America, especially, it's one of the most progressive churches around - and what they've prioritized about 'Christ's message' is definitely the right stuff to take away from Christianity.

I don't want my son growing up to learn that Christianity equals bigotry, homophobia, hypocrisy or conservatism - as it's taught to millions of fundamentalists each Sunday.

Another reason I want to give my son exposure to Christianity is because the Bible is an incredibly significant part of western culture. It's not, in any way, the 'basis' for American society (as some deeply delusional people will claim.)

However, the majority of Americans are Christian and the majority of the things I think are important - like literature and history - are better appreciated with a knowledge of the scripture that is so often made reference to within them.

And, finally, I want my son to experience the same Church I did - so we'll have a common bond. He's going to grow up in a different country to me - with a radically different way of thinking. So many of my experiences - like playing cricket and rugby in P.E. (ick) or conkers in the playground, or listening to the BBC on the drive to school - are going to be completely alien to him. This is a way to make sure my son grows up with his British heritage as part of his life - and that means an awful lot to me.

But that's not all.

While I might claim that I'm 'doing it for my son', that's not the entire truth. I don't think I'm altruistic enough to go to Church every Sunday if I didn't take something away from it myself - which I most certainly do.

For a start, I want to support our local Church, and the Episcopal Church in America in general. 70% of Americans claim to be Christian - and there are an awful lot of churches vying for their loyalty. I want to make sure that the Anglican church - a church that's progressive, fair and follows a vision of Christ's message that embraces everything good about religion - continues to stand strongly amongst the other denominations (especially the ones with more questionable beliefs.)

If I can only achieve that by being one more 'bum in a pew' on Sunday morning, and making a weekly donation to my Church, I think that's a small sacrifice to make.

Secondly, just because I don't believe in God, it doesn't mean I don't believe in Jesus. I'm a historian, after all - and the fact that a billion-strong faith that's endured for two millenia originated with the teachings of one man, it's pretty strong historical evidence that he might have really existed.

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God. I don't believe he performed miracles, or healed the blind. I do believe he went about the Holy Land preaching a message of brotherly love, tolerance and understanding - and much of what he taught is still applicable today.

He wasn't sent down from heaven to die for our sins - but he was put on this Earth to pass along some of the most important philosophical teachings in human history.

...and finally, I get something out of church - every week.

Our Reverend is an incredibly intelligent woman and her sermons are always thought-provoking. She has a wonderful way of taking scriptural teachings from the Bible - what I dismiss as the purely humanist philosophy taught by Jesus - and making them relevant to our daily lives.

It's very rare that I leave the church on a Sunday without feeling like I've learned something - and that this new knowledge could help me become a better person.

When I first lost my faith, I was very angry with God - and then when I realized you couldn't be angry with something that didn't exist, I transferred that anger to his followers (as demonstrated by a hundred angry posts about Christianity.)

But now I've mellowed - and can see that religion might be meaningless in my eyes, but it's not meaningless to millions of other people. I believe most of humanity is hardwired to 'believe' in something - and if that 'something' is as progressive, positive and good as the religion taught in my local Anglican Church, than this Atheist is very happy to support it.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in my Church. That's why I'm a part of it.

Hear endeth the lesson.

Arnold plays a joke...

Last week, California assemblyman Tom Ammiano heckled Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at a Republican gala - barking 'you lie' in imitation of the Republican congressman who'd heckled President Obama earlier this year.

In revenge for this snub, Schwarzenegger deliberatly vetoed a bill that Ammiano had recently passed through the house - also using the opportunity to write a strongly worded letter condeming the California legislature for its failure to act on the state's crushing budget deficit.

But within the letter, there was also another message - one specifically for Tom Ammiano.

Read the first letter from each line of the seven-word letter:


Although this 'message' was quickly spotted, the governor's office denied any involvement.

"It's a weird coincidence," said Schwarzenegger's spokesperson.

A very weird one. With 26 letters in the alphabet, the chances of that message appearing 'randomly' are approximately one in a billion.

On Retirement: Wherein Militant Ginger takes another lurch towards Libertarianism

I got a letter from the Federal Government yesterday.

It was a statement about the balance of my Social Security account - the national insurance program to which every worker in America contributes through their payroll taxes. Fairly routine stuff...

...except this time around, the Social Security administration also included a response to right-wing fear-mongers who'd been warning that Social Security would be bankrupt within three decades (a date which would, incidentally, be about when I'd first be likely to make use of Social Security.)

Social Security boldly countered this claim with two bits of information - and remember, these statements come from the Federal Government, not 'liar, liar, pants-on-fire' conservative propagandists:

• Okay, you caught us! Based on current projections, payroll taxes will fail to cover Social Security's payment commitments as early as 2037 - "unless something is done." (That 'something' is implied to be a hike in payroll taxes.)
• But don't worry! Because even based on current projections: "You will still receive $760 in social Security payments for every $1,000 invested."

Wait, so let me get this straight - for every $1,000 dollars I've 'invested' in my Social Security retirement fund throughout my life, I will only get 75% of it back? What kind of crappy 'investment' is that?

I wouldn't really mind - especially since private retirement funds are currently getting equally nobbled by the economy (losing an average of 31% of their value, prompting Time Magazine to argue 'Why it's time to retire the 401(k)')

Yet the difference between a crappy retirement investment and Social Security is that you don't have a choice about investing in Social Security. Whether you like it or not, you're getting a percentage taken out every time you get paid.

Back in March of 2008, I argued that Social Security was doomed - and am disgraced to admit that I later went back on that position, after getting swept up in defending the government from all that 'socialist' nonsense the right-wing were spouting.

But I should have stuck to my guns! It turns out I was right all along.

At least now I know better - and am back to my original position. In an ideal America, we should be allowed to 'opt out' of Social Security and invest our retirement funds how we best see fit.

[Given the current economy, that's bundled into wads of cash and stuffed into your mattress - Editorial Bear]

Except we can't, in good conscience. Because we have an obligation.

Irresponsible governments (both Republican and Democrat) have dipped into our Social Security principle over the past decades, which has left the coffers empty. Today, a whole generation of workers watch their Social Security payments not being invested for their own retirement, but instead being used to cash the last generations' Social Security cheques.

And there's nothing wrong with that, because the last generation deserve their cheques. It's just that it's a vicious circle - and if we're offered the opportunity to 'opt out' of Social Security, yesterday's retirees (who rely on today's payroll taxes) will stop getting their cheques altogether!

And when my generation retires, the problem gets worse. It deepens the black hole - because there will be even more retirees around - and fewer workers left to sustain them!

And that means we've unforgivably screwed our children's pooch. We've left our kids with the financial commitment of supporting our own retirement - and yet they'll have nothing to show for it at the end.

I don't want to start parroting the right-wing rhetoric about 'socialism,' but in this instance, it kind of is. It's also the worst kind of socialism - one that's utterly divorced from the principles of social justice; an inexcusable 'flat tax' on American workers that's redistributed blindly.

So we can't 'opt out.' Nor can our kids. Not now, not ever. Because those retirees deserve their Social Security cheques - and so will we. So what is the solution to fix Social Security?

Higher payroll taxes. More commitment.

And that means my son, and his entire generation, will be left paying more, but getting less. For every dollar they invest in Social Security, a percentage of it is already committed to somebody else. If I think my 76% return on my investment is shameful, wait until we see their figures.

And even if that unfair system works - and Social Security does manage to claw its way back into the black - how long will it be before some other 'bold' government decides to 'borrow' from the replenished fund again - and set this whole cycle back into motion?

The real reaction to Nick Griffin and the British Nationalist Party

The BBC, who are always eager for ratings, recently decided to perk up the flagging viewing figures of their sophomoric discussion show ‘Question Time’ by inviting controversial politician Nick Griffin to appear on it.

The gamble paid off. More viewers tuned in than at any other time during the show’s 30-year history. Over eight million people watched Britain’s white-supremacist pariah wrangling with the likes of Lord Chancellor Jack Straw, Conservative politician Baroness Warsi and Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne on the tricky issue of immigration.

The show itself was at turns both farcical and terrifying.

Nick Griffin, as expected, came off terribly – with Max Hastings writing that “the panel had little difficulty making Griffin seem slippery and indeed repugnant.” However, an unintended consequence was making just about every other panel member look equally as incompetent and duplicitous.

The problem was; nobody stood up to tackle the issue at hand.

Jack Straw, Baroness Warsi and Chris Huhne showed a united front in attacking Nick Griffin on his party’s disgusting policies – but offered absolutely nothing of value regarding their own attitudes towards immigration. Because it’s considered politically incorrect, or even ‘racist’, to question the right of millions of foreign nationals to settle in England, they had nothing to say on the issue – while Nick Griffin said plenty.

The upshot? A stark and terrifying demonstration of why Griffin’s rancid, white-supremacist party stormed the elections earlier this year – and why support for the BNP continues to grow.

Amongst the people of Britain, there is a very real, very tangible anger about the country’s ‘open door’ policy towards immigration – and the mainstream political parties refuse to even acknowledge that dissatisfaction.

The obtuse ignorance of the Labour party was amply demonstrated following Question Time. While the media scrambled to interpret the fallout of the controversial episode, Jack Straw smugly announced that Nick Griffin’s appearance had capped “a catastrophic week for the BNP.”

The truth? The exact opposite.

Following Question Time, the Telegraph polled people who’d viewed the show and found that one in four would now consider voting for a BNP candidate as a result of what they’d seen.

YouGov acknowledged that the party’s support in opinion polls had climbed 33% in the following weeks. The BNP itself announced over 3,000 new party members – all because of Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. The BBC received 357 complaints about that particular episode of Question Time – and the majority of them, 243 to be exact, were complaints that the show was unfairly biased against Nick Griffin, not to complain about his appearance.

So what does all this mean?

I honestly don’t believe it implies that Britain is a racist country – or that Nick Griffin’s ‘white’s only’ rhetoric resonates with many people. Given the conspicuous silence from the mainstream political parties on the issue of immigration, perhaps the groundswell of support for the BNP simply means that an increasing number of voters support something that Nick Griffin’s party stands for – but not everything.

And that something? Immigration.

Britain is in the midst of an immigration overload at the moment. England’s population – already the most dense in all of Europe – swells by over a million foreign immigrants every two and a half years. Within a decade, the population will be over 70 million – with millions of them having been born elsewhere.

It’s considered very politically incorrect to talk about immigration in anything but positive terms, but that’s how millions of British people see it.

The open door immigration policy has led to the creation of virtual ghettos in inner cities across the country. Some schools have discovered that English is no longer the common language. Over 40% of state-funded housing applications are coming from families born in another nation. As far as many British people are concerned, immigration has become more about colonization than integration.

And that’s what is at the heart of the problem – and why the BNP is winning over more and more supporters. It’s not the immigrants themselves who are the problem – in fact, so much of what makes modern Britain wonderful stems from our rich history of immigration. It’s the fact that the millions of new arrivals aren’t becoming part of British culture – they’re just coming – and this isn’t their fault, it’s ours.

And even the British Nationalist Party fails to address that issue satisfactorily. They're morally bankrupt and ethically bereft because they believe in a white Britain – and Britain hasn’t been white for generations.

Think of some of our most uniquely ‘British’ institutions – like curry on a Friday night (thanks to immigrants from India and Pakistan.) Or quintessentially ‘British’ figures like comedian Lenny Henry (whose parents were Jamaican immigrants,) newsreaders Trevor MacDonald and Moira Stuart – both Afro-Caribbean. Even non-white sporting heroes like boxer Frank Bruno, F1 driver Lewis Hamilton and show-jumper Oliver Skeete (perhaps the only show-jumper sporting dreadlocks!)

When singer/songwriter Craig David – born of Jewish and Grenadian parents – won the BRIT award for best male singer, he even leaped to the stage to declare “I’m proud to be British.”

Being British – and being proud of the fact – has nothing to do with skin color.

Britain’s become such a wonderfully multi-colored culture that my idea of hell would be Nick Griffin’s ‘all white England’ – and I optimistically believe that most of the country feels the same way I do.

The reason more and more people are supporting the BNP isn’t because they want to racially ‘cleanse’ the country as Nick Griffin and his cohorts have implied. It isn’t even that they want to stop all immigration into Britain. It’s not about race, or ethnicity, or skin-color or nationality. It’s not a racist or xenophobic issue. It’s just simply about new arrivals being required to integrate with British culture.

Not assimilate – part of the way British culture has evolved is through adopting aspects of new arrivals, and people should be allowed to remain true to their heritage – but a requirement to make a few cultural adjustments.

And instead? We have the ‘politically correct’ parties advocating the opposite. In the interests of 'respecting' foreign culture, it’s allowed to exist almost autonomously. We’ve even reached the stage in which certain Muslim communities are allowed to operate their own legal system – based on ‘sharia’ law, instead of the laws of Britain.

It’s this disconnect – the foundation of isolated colonies within British towns and cities – which has fostered resentment from the native Britons (black, white and brown) who live alongside them.

Until one of the mainstream political parties is willing to tackle this cultural disconnect, that resentment will continue to fester – and the parties who stoke it for their own cynical ends, like the British Nationalists, will only increase in popularity.

Einstein vs. God

The extent of Einstein's genius was not limited to physics.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Albert Einstein, March 1931

Where the Wild Things Are

Where the Wild Things Are was always going to be an ambitious movie.

Adapting a book into a film is tricky enough - even without that book being one of the most beloved children's classics of all time. The task becomes even more daunting when a story that's just eleven sentences long needs to be stretched out to over ninety minutes.

So did writer David Eggers and director Spike Jonze succeed?

The answer is both a resounding 'yes' and a triumphant 'no.' The big-screen adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are winds up being an incredibly challenging movie - sticking loyally to the visual and visceral style of the original book, while expanding it in utterly unexpected ways.

Just like the book, Where the Wild Things Are opens with rambunctious Max causing chaos in his mother's modest home. Dressed in wolf pajamas, brandishing a fork, twelve-year-old actor Max Records races after a terrified dog and then pelts his sister's friends with snowballs. After 'acting out' in front of his weary mother, Max runs off into the night to escape being sent to his room without any supper.

From there, the film continues to follow the book's story - with Max drifting off to sea in a conveniently-discovered boat. After braving the stormy waves, he's washed up on a deserted island, where he encounters a gang of macabre monsters who quickly hail him as their new 'king.'

This is the point at which the children's story grows up - and becomes a sad, sweet and poignant journey through Max's tormented emotions.

Director Spike Jonze has accomplished something incredible with the look and feel of Where the Wild Things Are. Using animatrontics, he's bought the monsters of Sendak's book vividly to life, creating real characters out of what had originally just been caricatures of Sendak's Brooklyn family.

The beasts look amazing - and blend so seamlessly into the real-life action that your suspension of disbelief is never challenged. These monsters are real - not just men in costumes.

And while they look real, they also act real - which is actually where my major problem with Where the Wild Things Are lies. They're too real - down to 'real' names like 'Douglas.'

David Eggers left it pretty obvious - the monsters inhabiting Max's island are all aspects of his own personality. There's sweet, loving Ira, shy and awkward Alexander, morose and taciturn Bull and grumpy, pessimistic Judith - plus the visual representation of Max's anger, frustration and loneliness - Carol.

By uniting these bickering monsters, Max takes a metaphorical journey through his own subconscious - but that journey doesn't translate quite as well to the screen as Jonze and Eggers might have imagined.

We're left watching an island populated by a bunch of self-obsessed, depressed and listless beasties - a sort of grotesque parody of Seinfeld, right down the quips, insults and New York accents. After the initial wonderment of seeing these spectacular creatures brought to life, it's a bit of a downer to discover just how boring, pedestrian and human they are. Far too much screen-time is spent with the monsters gazing sadly out to sea, sitting glumly on the hillsides or letting out heartfelt, defeated sighs.

Ultimately, Where the Wild Things Are is a bit of an anticlimax. There's not nearly as much resolution on the island as you might expect - and as Max sails away, you can't help feeling sorry for the sad, lonely and defeated monsters watching him disappear into the distance. He might have solved his own emotional problems, but the inhabitants of the island are left as disfunctional as ever (and, in one example, dismembered to boot.)

It's still an incredible achievement - and a film anybody who loved the original story has to see. That being said, it's far from a perfect adaptation. There's just something missing - something that leaves you scratching your head as you leave the theater.

Oh, and while we're at it, it's worth mentioning that this is most certainly not a movie for children. The pace of Where the Wild Things Are is positively glacial at times, while the monsters themselves aren't above giving little kids - and not-so-little kids - a few nightmares.

I'd definitely recommend seeing it - but I guarantee it's very different to whatever you might have expected. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is ultimately up to you to decide.

Ask Militant Ginger

It’s that time again! When I trawl the search engine keywords that have directed readers my way!

Who is the fittest ginger?

Do you mean the British definition of ‘fit’ – as in ‘attractive’, or the more pedestrian definition, of the ‘most athletic.’ Since ‘ginger’ is a British term, I’ll assume the former.

Well, it’s a pretty subjective question. At the moment, I think it’s worth arguing that Rupert Grint – who plays Ron Weasely in the Harry Potter movies – is probably the world’s number-one ginger sex-symbol. In a recent poll, over 60% of ladies voted for him.

Is Rupert Grint the world's sexiest ginger? 60% of women say 'I guess!'

In terms of women, there’s no doubt about it – Christina Hendricks, from Firefly and Mad Men – rocks the kasbar as the world’s hottest redhead.

She’s peaking all the Google search statistics at the moment - and is generally accepted as the most gorgeous thing on television – despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that she’s built with the kind of curves that the fashion industry fell out of love with back in the Mad Men-era of the 1960s.

I love her. She’s stunning.

Christina Hendricks... No witty caption required.

Did Stephenie Meyer contribute to California’s Proposition 8?

‘Proposition Hate’ is what many people call the referendum in California which reversed the Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriages.

The ‘sanctity of marriage’ crusade was largely sponsored by the Mormon church, who donated millions for advertising campaigns and lobbying to get the bill passed (including this family, who spent their life savings.)

[I'd just like to point out that not all Mormons feel this way, nor should they be thrown in with the lot who do - Editorial Bear]

The fact that Stephanie Meyer, author of the wildly popular Twilight series, is a devout Mormon has raised many questions about her feelings towards same-sex marriage. Many of Twilight's biggest fans are the sort of people who support marriage equality – and they’d be understandably upset if the author of their favorite books was part of a crusade against the values they passionately believe in.

Well, I haven’t found any evidence that Stephanie Meyer directly supported Proposition 8 – and nor did I find anything suggesting the church to which she ‘tithes’ 10% of her income gave any cash to the cause.

However, that church DID donate over $190,000 in ‘in-kind’ services to people lobbying to get Proposition 8 passed, which is pretty strong evidence to support the assumption that Stephanie Meyer is against same-sex marriage.

Her church was very vocal in their opposition to marriage equality – and she never stood up to vocalize any disagreement with that - so in this case, her silence is as incriminating as any financial paper trail.

Help! My BeerMachine always produces cloudy beer!

Yours and mine both, mate! Having spent many years brewing with the Beer Machine, I’ve yet to create a crisp, clear batch of beer yet (but it's still delicious.)

The Beer Machine - not as easy as it makes it sound, but delicious never the less

However, through years of brewing, I have found the following hints have definitely improved the clarity of the beer I’ve made:

1. Thoroughly wash, disinfect and rinse your Beer Machine prior to making a new ‘batch.’ Totally disassemble the machine and scrub it to remove any and all traces of previous brews. Then, after reassembling the machine, fill it with a mild mix of bleach and very hot water and seal it. Test the seal by using a CO2 cartridge. Leave the bleach in the Beer Machine for at least twenty four hours, then rinse it thoroughly with cold water several times. This will kill any foreign bacteria that might be contaminating your beer.
2. Keep it steady! During the initial five-day fermentation, silt and sediment will sink to the bottom of the Beer Machine. When your fermentation is complete (when air stops bubbling from the pressure relief valve on top of the Beer Machine) move it AS GENTLY AS POSSIBLE to the fridge. The more you shake the Beer Machine up, the more silt will be disturbed – and anybody who’s worked in a pub will tell you that once you’ve ‘clouded up’ a beer, it’s impossible to put right again.
3. The cold-filtering period, when your Beer Machine sits in the fridge, is when it will get to its clearest. Make sure the fridge is cool enough (3 or 4 is a good setting) and leave it utterly undisturbed for a minimum of seven days (I recommend ten – three more than the instructions dictate.) Remember, any shift will swill up the sediment and cloud your beer. If you can keep it absolutely still, you can probably produce a fairly clear batch.
   

To produce a perfect brew, you have a couple of other options. One is a dedicated fridge – switch it off, with the door open, during the initial five-day ferment, so the Beer Machine can process the sugar into alcohol. Then, switch on the fridge and close the door. You’ll be able to start a dedicated cold filtration without moving the Beer Machine at all, meaning you won’t disturb the sediment.

The other alternative? Two fermentations. Run your Beer Machine as usual during the first fermentation – brewing the first batch of beer until the pressure relief valve stops bubbling.

Then, instead of moving the entire machine to the fridge, pour the fermented beer into a series of individual bottles – I recommend plastic, one-liter bottles, like Seltzer water comes in (it doesn’t look cool, but there is a method to my madness as I’ll explain.)

Once you’ve separated your beer into bottles, throw in two of these – carbonation tablets. These are basically sugar lumps, which give the dormant yeast contained in the beer a new source of food to chow down on.

Leave the bottled beer out in room temperature (70-77 degrees) for five days. Your beer will be going through a secondary fermentation, as evidenced by the plastic bottles swelling up. Your beer is basically carbonating itself, plus the alcohol content is increasing.

After five days, transfer the bottles to your fridge and let them chill for ten days. The sediment in the bottles will sink to the bottom – just like it proper ‘artisan’ style beer. After ten days, your beer should be dramatically clearer than using the Beer Machine, as well as delightfully fizzy and a lot stronger than normal.

Just remember to leave the ‘dregs’ in the bottom of the bottle when you pour it, otherwise you’ll dump the sediment into the glass.

Happy brewing!

Was Cameron the Terminator, from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, a virgin?

Erm. What?

For those of you unfamiliar with Cameron, she was a character in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles - a promising, but short-lived sci-fi series based on the hit movies.

In the show, Firefly alumni Summer Glau played Cameron - a sexy Terminator sent back in time to protect savior-of-the-world John Connor from robot assassins.

Summer Glau is a fan-boy favorite and the show featured plenty of implied nudity to prove that SkyNet, when they created Cameron, were working off some primo blueprints (the only improvement would have been to base her off Christina Hendricks.)

But although there was an implied relationship between John and Cameron in the series, let’s not surrender to fan-boy fantasy. In the TV series she was a robot. A killer robot. A killer robot sent back in time, designed by a self-aware computer virus that detested humanity!

While they did everything they could to make her blend in – by giving her a perky set of breasts and a tight, round rump, as revealed in the various implied nude scenes – it is very doubtful that they ‘completed’ the illusion.

And if that’s too vague an answer, I’ll clarify – underneath her panties, she was probably ‘equipped’ like an Action Man or Barbie Doll. She was a robot, for God’s sake!

Saving the future? Easy. Keeping your clothes on? Not so simple!

Then again, Editorial Bear is nudging my elbow to remind me that one of the terminator robots they ran across in the series was ‘equipped’ for duty – and had posed as a woman’s husband for several months (which implies they were intimate on more than one occasion.)

Given that nugget of information – and based on where the series had been taking John and Cameron’s relationship – I’m now wondering if Cameron did come with the ‘equipment’ necessary to consummate a relationship.

If so, I worry deeply about the mental health of the show’s writers and am now secretly pleased that it was canceled! Crikey – some people!

Button One - Proud to be British - for once

This season, Formula One got back to its roots.

...and let's be honest, it was about bloody time. Before this year's season, F1 was getting pretty damn boring!

There was too much money involved, the major teams were dominating the races and the whole thing seemed to have descended into a competition to see which pit crew could change tires the fastest.

But then along came Brawn.

Brawn GP was an entirely new racing team, created from the remnants of Honda F1 and headed up by former Ferrari strategist Ross Brawn.

It was a real throwback to the golden age of racing - a dedicated racing team, operating on a shoestring budget and with a dynamic personality leading the charge. Brawn were gritty, tough underdogs going up against seemingly implacable racing institutions like Ferrari and McClaren.

And they kicked ass. [To use an America expression - Editorial Bear.]

Right from the green light, Brawn GP raced ahead of the competition. Despite having none of the financial or technological advantages of the 'big dogs,' this shoestring British team blitzed the other constructors to take title after title.

Their lead driver, Jenson Button, had the season of his life - and we all loved him for it. Poor old Button had once been Britain's great, hyped hope - but his disappointing record had meant that this talented driver had largely been dismissed as a never-was (not even a 'has been.') Now he was back - and proving to everybody that he'd had what it took all along...

And this Sunday, at the Brazilian Grand Prix, both Brawn and Button beat the odds to collect the Constructor's Championship and the Driver's crown. It was one hell of an achievement for a team that logically shouldn't have been able to match - let alone trump - the better-funded competition.

Okay, Sunday's race was a bit an anticlimax. Instead of a victorious 1-2 result, Button pulled in fifth and teammate Barrichello cross the finish line eighth (after a puncture.) That meant they technically took the championships in rather muted fashion (although with Button wailing Queen's 'We are the Champions!' into his radio when he passed the chequered flag, muted is probably not how his teammates would have described his reaction!)

Regardless, it was a great achievement - true Formula One history and one of those rare occasions when I felt unashamedly proud to be British, supporting a British team.

Congratulations Brawn.

Old Cars vs. New Cars

As long-time readers of Militant Ginger might have realized, I have an allergy to modern automobiles (with some notable exceptions.)

While the style and character of older cars is inarguable, the practicalities of driving vintage (and in my case, not-so-vintage) vehicles is debatable. They're not as reliable, they often cost more to run and definitely cost more to maintain. But how much more?

I'd always lived by the assumption that my classic car saved me money. Running a clunker meant no monthly payments to make, cheaper insurance and no big outlay when you bought the thing. But how does that pan out in reality?

Well, for the first time ever I challenged my assumption and ran a comparison between my wife's fairly new Toyota Rav4 and 'The Locomotive' - my '89 Town Car.

You won't be surprised to learn that I was right - I do save money driving a 'clunker' - but not nearly as much as you might imagine. In fact, over five years, the cost of driving my classic is only a couple of thousand dollars short of what my wife pays.

It makes for astonishing maths. I've broken it down here - obviously, rounding up some of the figures and balancing others out (the Rav4 doesn't do the mileage The Locomotive does, for instance, so I did a miles-per-gallon comparison based on my commute.)

The assumption is that the sticker price on a 'new' car is ten times higher than that of a classic - meaning you're out of pocket from the very beginning. In fact, it doesn't mean that you lose out - especially since a newer car runs leaner, cleaner and more reliably than a clunker.


I'll clarify a few things from my chart. 'Monthly costs' includes maintenance bills spread out over the year, along with any car payments - for example, The Locomotive's two visits to the shop totaled $1,950 - a monthly cost of $163 - while the combined maintenance costs of the Rav4, plus the monthly hire-purchase payments, came to $250.

At the end of the day, I do come away almost $500 richer a year thanks to driving my Lincoln instead of the Rav4 - even taking into consideration the fact that it's thirstier and less reliable. And while I'm very happy with a 'monkey' in my pocket each year - that's still not nearly what I expected to be saving - especially given the fact that my car's paid for outright.

In fact, if we'd walked into the Toyota dealership and bought that car outright, instead of on hire-purchase, it would have ended up costing us less money than my Lincoln after five years. We'd have been saving $165 a year.

Mind you, when I'm in the financial situation to walk into a dealership and buy a nearly-new car in cash, perhaps I won't feel the need to quibble over a few hundred dollars - in which case, I'd still pick classic style over Japanese reliability any day of the week.

The Angry Sea

One of the weird things about America is that it's so bloody big! Nearly two and a half thousand miles separate New York City from Los Angeles - and in between the two are an awful lot of cornfields (and mountains, cows, diners, the world's biggest ball of twine and other stuff like that.)

Which means that there are an astonishing number of Americans who don't live anywhere near the sea.

To a Brit, such as myself, this is pretty weird. England's such a small place, you're never more than a couple of hours away from the ocean and I've always lived significantly closer to it than that. I spent months on Tresco, in the Isles of Scilly, and used to go to sleep to the sound of the lapping waves. Likewise, I had an apartment in Saint Valery en Caux that overlooked the harbour - with the sound of the clonking yacht masts lulling me to dreamland.

Living near the ocean means you get to experience more than just the sandy summer you might enjoy at a Myrtle Beach Resort. You get to see the full spectrum of the ocean's character - which varies on a daily basis. One day, it can be utterly still - like a glassy mirror stretching out into the horizon. Another day can see the waves reaching thirty feet into the air and crashing against the rocks like Neptune's angry fists.

So although most people tend to visit beach side locations, like the Myrtle Beach Resorts in South Carolina, during the summer months - they're not getting the full picture when they do. The sea is at it's most fascinating when the beach isn't laden with sun worshippers.

Here are some pictures of the ocean - and a reason why I never want to live too far away from it. It's mood varies on an hourly basis kind of like a [insert chauvinistic feminine comparison here]:




(All these pictures were taken at Myrtle Beach Accomodations in South Carolina.)

Mini Militant's Weekend Update

Hayrides and Pumpkin Picking...



And blogging about it afterwards...

Mixed Marriage 'Ban' - BBC go tabloid

A while ago, when Editorial Bear was still typing away, I used to have a section in which I'd nail the BBC for their biased reporting.

That was before I moved to America - where Fox News made me appreciate the BBC, biased even as it was!

But today saw them publish a news story that's just a blatant manipulation of the facts.

Anger at US mixed marriage 'ban'

A white US justice of the peace has been criticised for refusing to issue marriage licences to mixed-race couples. Full story here.

The true story behind this BBC report is sad and disgusting: When young couple Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, a white woman and an African-American man, applied for a marriage license from US justice of the peace Keith Bardwell, they were utterly astonished to find their application denied.

"In my experience, most interracial marriages do not last very long," Bardwell attempted to explain his inexplicable decision. "And there is a problem with both white and black groups accepting a child from a mixed marriage. I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

He also revealed that he'd refused other interracial marriages in the past years.

It was shocking. Ever since the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, it's been a legal precedent that no government authority can deny two people a marriage license based on the grounds of race. Bardwell was clearly breaking the law and perpetuating a bigoted, racist attitude that indicates he's absolutely unfit to hold his position.

However...

The BBC headline to this story - using the word 'ban' - is totally misleading.

There is no 'ban' on interracial marriage - not in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana or any part of the United States. Even Keith Bardwell admitted that Humphrey and McKay could apply for a marriage license in the same parish with a different justice of the peace - and have it approved.

It wasn't a 'ban' - it was one racist, bigoted idiot's personal decision affecting one couple.

That personal decision is shocking, but it's his alone. It's not a parish-wide, county-wide or even state-wide 'ban' on mixed marriages.

By using the inflammatory headline 'Anger at US Mixed Marriage Ban' the BBC are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist. They're trying to stir up old stereotypes and use the United State's uncomfortable civil rights history to suggest that there's been an official 'ban' on interracial marriages when in fact, it's just one old man being an idiot.

And, of course, we Europeans lap this stuff up. A few years ago, when I was still in the UK, I'd probably have been shaking my head with everybody else - sighing at those 'backwards' Americans and the disgusting racism that was still institutionalized in the southern states.

But the problem is - it's not true. The ban part, at least. I think there's plenty of argument to suggest that racism is still a problem.

But there is still no ban. The government, in theory at least, is color-blind, even in the south. In fact, more interracial marriages occur in the 'backwards' southern states than the 'civilized' northern ones.

The BBC are manipulating the facts with the same, shameless intemperance as the British tabloids do. There seems to be an inherent streak within the British Broadcasting Corporation that revels in sneering at their less-civilized cousins across the Atlantic.

And while America isn't perfect - we have plenty of problems, especially regarding race - this is one instance in which the accusations don't match the facts.

I'm not defending the disgusting attitude of Keith Bardwell in any way. Denying that couple a marriage license was racist, bigoted and disgusting. However, in this instance the BBC blew the story totally out of proportion to insinuate that this was a widespread problem, instead of an isolated incident. It just wasn't true.

America has a sad history when it comes to race relations, but we're making progress every single day. Perhaps not fast enough, but faster than some Europeans might realise (after all, Britain has yet to have a black, brown or anything but white Prime Minister.)

In this instance, the BBC's biased report is just pathetic journalism. They should be utterly ashamed with themselves.

Mini Militant Models for the Camera

Behold, The Boo!

In this picture, Mini Militant gets down to academics on his new desk. For a small little man, he's got surprising crayon dexterity.

I'm sorry about the picture quality. Mini Militant is wise to cameras now - and squeezes shut his adorable brown eyes before the flash goes off (leading to some very unfortunate pictures!)

The trick is to take them with the flash off - but when it's dark outside, the result is the sepia-tinted picture above!

The other problem between digital cameras and the old fashioned film ones is that when you press the button on a digital SLR camera, there's often a delay before the shot is taken - and that split-second can make all the difference when you're dealing with a little man as wriggly as ours!

I think the answer probably lies with purchasing a more advanced digital camera than ours - something like a Nikon Coolpix, a Canon PowerShot or a Panasonic Lumix. However, given our 'robust' lifestyle (and the average life expectancy of our camera equipment) this isn't an investment we're willing to make at the moment!

So expect plenty more pictures of Mini Militant - but don't expect them to be very good!

Raped? File a complaint with the HR department.

The luscious Laurel of Licentiously Yours wrote a recent post on Eden Café that utterly astonished me. I've often been told that we live in a 'rape culture' - a claim I think most men are either skeptical or uncomfortable about. Seeing what she uncovered, though, leaves no doubt in my mind that even if we don't live in a 'rape culture,' - something is still deeply, unconscionably wrong with our society.

Laurel revealed that huge corporations, like KBR/Halliburton, often have a clause in their employment contracts that contractually demand allegations of rape and other crimes committed by fellow employees are arbitrated privately - not by criminal or civil courts.

In short, if you get raped on the job, it's your local Human Resources department that deals with it. You can get fired for reporting the rape to the police and you've signed away your right to seek restitution in the civil courts.

It sounds astonishing. It gets even worse when this clause gets put into use.

Like in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a civilian contractor working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was slipped date-rape drugs in a beverage by her colleagues - and while unconscious, was brutally beaten, raped and sodomised.

A US Physician confirmed that she'd been raped - and recorded her injuries. Yet instead of reporting the rape, her employers at Halliburton confined Jones to a shipping crate for 24 hours without food or water - while they tried to cover the rape up and prevent her reporting it.

It was only when a sympathetic guard allowed her to use her cell-phone that she was able to contact her father - who contacted their local representative and had State Department agents fly to Baghdad to bring the brutalized woman home.

(This is the reason Halliburton employees in Iraq are no longer allowed cell-phones.)

What happened next pales in comparison to the ordeal Jones had already been through - but remains utterly disgusting.

Halliburton confiscated the rape kit and evidence taken by the US physician who had treated Jones - and only part of it was returned, containing too little evidence to use in a criminal prosecution. Due to immunity granted to Halliburton employees, neither the Iraqi government or the US Department of Justice filed criminal proceedings. Even worse, Jone's contract of employment forbid her from suing those who had raped her, or Halliburton itself.

It took three years for Jones to finally get that ruling overturned - and start the road to receiving some form of justice. However, in order to prevent something as shocking and disgusting as this from ever happening again, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota put forward a bill banning companies and corporations using similar clauses in their employment contracts.

The bill passed - but it wasn't unanimous.

In fact, 30 representatives - all of them Republican - voted against this bill, arguing that it was a 'personal attack' on Halliburton (even though it affected all companies) and gave congress too much power in influencing the employment contracts of defense employees.

“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.

Now I can understand Republicans objecting to single-payer health care, or government-funded insurance options. I can understand them objecting to finance regulations, or stricter rules governing the housing market. I get that they're all about the 'free market system.'

But how anybody - anybody - could argue that it's right, fair, just or American to contractually deny an employee protection against rape is just disgusting.

Disgusting, maybe - but as I've discovered with American politics, it's hardly unusual. Not when every senate vote is for sale to the highest corporate bidder

So, yes, maybe those feminists have a point when they say we live in a 'rape culture.' It's not just pour old Jamie Leigh Jones who was raped in this instance. It's the entire notion of justice in 'corporate' America.

Daggett for NJ Governor

In just a few weeks, residents of New Jersey will be voting for somebody to fill the governor's seat. Currently, it's a not-so-tight race, with Republican Chris Christie leading the incumbent Democrat, Jon Corzine, by a healthy margin.

But neither of them deserve to be elected this November.

Candidates Jon Corzine, Chris Daggett and Chris Christie, in a recent televised debate

Jon Corzine's political collateral is spent. As Governor of New Jersey, he reneged on his promise to cut property taxes and has instead sent taxes skyrocketing - currently, NJ residents bear the biggest tax burden in America. Corzine's tax hikes will continue if he's reelected. He's already discussing raising the tax on gasoline.

Although the economy mitigates some of the blame, Corzine's administration was responsible for an $8 billion deficit in the state budget this year, with a $10 billion deficit forecast for 2010. That's despite enacting 111 new taxes (totaling $1.2 billion in extra revenue) and halting tax rebates for 1.2 million New Jersey residents.

But don't imagine that Chris Christie's promises look any better. I've already outlined the corruption that was rife in his department while he was New Jersey's U.S. Attorney.

Just today, despite standing on a position of financial responsibility - and promising to cut spending, graft and waste - Christie has also been exposed for exceeding federal spending limits during his time in the attorney's office. He used taxpayer's money to fund lavish stays in five star hotels for himself and his staff - exceeding spending limits by as much as 100% on 23 of the 30 trips he claimed for.

Christie claims he only stayed in luxury hotels, like the Four Seasons in Washington D.C., when there was no other accommodation available.

"There is never a situation where the only available hotel in Washington is the Four Seasons," retorted Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "If you stay there, you've chosen luxury - and you've chosen to ignore the rules."

Even before we begin to compare the policies and positions of these two competing candidates, it's clear neither of them possess the ethics or initiative deserving of the position of governor.

Sadly, the only admirable candidate for the governor's office - independent Chris Daggett - stands little chance of being elected. Despite standing head and shoulders above Corzine or Christie - and trouncing them decisively in recent televised debate - there are electoral roadblocks in place that make his election little more than wishful thinking.

It's a real pity. Daggett is former chairman of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Permit Efficiency Task Force and a veteran of the Reagan administration. He's a man who really knows about fiscal responsibility - yet holds moderate political positions that appeal to a broad range of New Jersey residents. Unlike Christie or Corzine, Daggett makes specific campaign pledges - like a promise to cut New Jersey property taxes by 25% and restructure the tax system.

He's even won the endorsement of left-wing papers like the Star-Ledger, who said: “Daggett’s election would send shock waves through New Jersey’s ossified political system and, we believe, provide a start in a new direction.”

It's just a pity it's unlikely to happen - but on the off chance that it might, I urge anybody living in New Jersey to vote for Daggett this November.